While the mainstream media might mention"catch and release" and "OTM"
every once in a while, the knowledge about what is
really going on about how illegal aliens are actually
apprehended and processed at the border remains mostly
hidden from public view.

But the knowledge is critical—because the border will
remain
porous as long as current
litigation-based non-detention policies and
procedures remain in place.

In the
U.S. Senate—getting past the open hostility from
pro-amnesty zombies—even some of the "best"
immigration law enforcement efforts happening right now
amount to little more than feel-good amendments
validating current Executive Branch
non-enforcement policies.

As part of my ongoing one-man virtual march on
Washington, D.C.—resolutely chanting "expedited
removal, SI . . . Amnesty, NO" here on the pages
of
VDARE.com—I
came to the conclusion last week that "[u]ntil
Bush Administration zombies accept the most basic
premise that keeping illegal aliens out of the United
States is a worthwhile goal, then there`s no use in
trying to have an
intelligent conversation about immigration law
enforcement with any of them."

How is the Senate out to lunch on immigration law
enforcement? The smoking gun comes from a report last
week from the Federation for American Immigration Reform
(FAIR), concerning the looming amnesty crisis.

On the surface, the report appears to be good news:
According to FAIR:

Senator Sessions
(R-AL)
offered an
amendment requiring detention of illegal aliens who
are other than Mexicans and a $5,000
bond for release. This amendment aims to end
current "catch and release" policies. Senator
Kyl argued that the amendment represents the current
policy of the White House and therefore should be
adopted. Others argued that the amendment would
never work as long as there are too few
detention beds. But the amendment was approved
by voice vote.

Senator Coburn
(R-OK)
offered an amendment that had been set aside
yesterday to mandate use of expedited removal for
illegal aliens (other than Mexicans) captured within
100 miles of the southern border and within 14 days
of entry. The amendment was approved by voice vote.

That`s right, Senator Sessions, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) bonds out illegal aliens from
immigration custody like it`s going out of style. . .
all so it can feed the ponderous
federal litigation bureaucracy of the Department of
Justice`s Immigration Court system of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

And as long as this litigation-based system persists, as
the good Senator said in a different context, "the
amendment would never work."

And as for Senator Coburn`s amendment, this language
conforms to the current provisions of H.R. 4437. But
that`s not necessarily a good thing. As I`ve written
again and
again, these new time and distance restrictions on
expedited removal actually scale back the
authority already
on the books (but not fully implemented) since 1996!
It`s all there in Immigration Act
Section 235(b).

So while illegal aliens
chant in the streets for another amnesty, the
so-called "enforcement" language of the current
bill immigration bills would mean the death-knell for
nationwide expedited removal authority.

Instead of apprehending illegal aliens found ANYWHERE in
the United States with TWO YEARS of their entry, the
game of "pass the border and you`re home free"
would become law.

And what`s my beef with Senator John McCain?

Consider this
e-mail I received on March 9 from
Peter Gadiel, regarding the recent "adventures in
D.C." of his 911 Families for a Secure America(FSA)
group.

Gadiel wrote:

"At the end of a week
of lobbying, we accidentally met Sen. John McCain just
outside the Russell Senate Office Building. Joan

[Molinaro],
Bruce

[De Cell] and
I approached him

[and]
identified ourselves as
9/11 family members. We told him we opposed his
amnesty bill, and of our promise to hold accountable
members of Congress who vote for it for
the acts of violence that
result. The following conversation resulted:

"At this, McCain
started screaming and pointed his finger in our
faces: `After all I`ve done for you people! I welcome
you to come to my state. I`ll debate the issue with you.
The people of Arizona trust me…I got 77% of the vote
last year. Who do you think they`ll believe?`

Gadiel: Oh sure, but you needed 85% of your money
from outside the state.
What kind of
confidence is that?"

Like I said. Intelligent conversation about immigration
law enforcement is definitely in short supply these
days.

So in the face of this continuing deficit, I turn, as
always, to my e-mail in-box. On March 8, a VDARE.com
reader wrote concerning the ongoing
expedited removal scandal:

"Let me just say that,
in the simplest terms possible, this [non-enforcement]
is a return to the objectives of the second-to-last
Commissioner of the INS,
Doris Meissner, whose goal, as set by the
administration that appointed her (Clinton) was to
essentially open the border as wide as possible by
turning the agency into a customer-service
organization—and distance itself from any
law-enforcement role.

"Under DHS, the
`umbrella` of fighting terrorism is being used as a
reason to realign `priorities and redirect assets so
that the administration can bolster itself on the War on
Terror`—which is a
good thing, but not to the detriment of all else!
Everything done within DHS is done under the guideline
of how it looks under the counter-terrorism microscope
and virtually no discussion is given or heeded on
any
other
area of
concern."

"Good to hear that
there are other people who are knowledgeable about the
various means of removal and are equally frustrated.
Another point to take into consideration is that the
different Border Patrol Sectors have different local
policies as to how they implement ER [expedited
removal].

"We are supposed to
apply the most expeditious means of removing someone if
the alien is eligible for that form of removal, be it
reinstatement, administrative removal, ER or VR [voluntary
return]. With the sheer numbers of Mexicans
apprehended (and those apprehended
repeatedly) Mexicans enjoy an almost special status
in that they are eligible for VR that carries no penalty
whatsoever if repeatedly apprehended.

"Oh sure, there is the
odd Mexican who might rack up 20-25 VRs, which in most
sectors would finally warrant ER or an NTA
[the EOIR Immigration
Court charging document called a
"notice to appear"], or maybe a misdemeanor
prosecution, if an AUSA [Assistant U.S. Attorney]
was available and willing to take it, but the fact is,
without penalties, or a medium which serves as a
deterrent, there is an incentive to try and try again.

"Virtually all AUSA`s
reject prosecuting non-criminal Mexicans or repeat
offenders unless the number of violations is really
high. More U.S. attorneys to prosecute the minor cases
are needed, plus we need to make the interior repeat
program mandatory, not voluntary, as it is currently. VR
or ER as it applies to Mexicans just enables the
smugglers and keeps them employed.

"If Mexico refuses to
really assist us in keeping their citizens from
repeatedly breaching our borders and enables the
smuggling industry to flourish in staging sites and
crossing points near the POEs
[Ports of Entry],
we need more ways to make returning a deterrent and not
an incentive by virtue of being from a contiguous
country. We need more prosecutions and fewer returns to
the border where it is easier to return. Too bad we
can`t set up a flight pad for repatriation in
Chiapas."

So there you have it. The ongoing expedited removal
non-implementation scandal continues.

And so far, the story of how our own immigration laws
and policies make the border even more porous remains
confined to my e-mail in-box, and right here on the
pages of VDARE.com.